5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently imprisoned in the city of Zhytomyr, Ukraine.
6.  On 27 January 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murdering a taxi driver, M., and of several other crimes committed in 2001 (“the 2001 crimes”) and was placed in a cell at the Kyiv Kharkivsky District Police Department.
7.  The same day the applicant requested Mr O. Kh. as his lawyer in the case. This was allowed and the lawyer attended the initial questioning of the applicant.
8.  On 28 January 2001 the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer by Mr G., an investigating prosecutor at the Kyiv Kharkivsky District Prosecutor’s Office (“the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office”).
9.  On 1 February 2001 Mr M., a police officer at the Kyiv Kharkivsky District Police Department (“the police department”), who was in charge of investigating the death of a taxi driver, Kh., in the summer of 1998, questioned the applicant with a view to establishing his possible involvement in that crime. The crime was classified as infliction of grievous bodily harm causing death, for which legal representation of a suspect was not obligatory. The applicant signed a waiver of his right to counsel. The applicant was then questioned and confessed that he and Mr S. had murdered Kh. in the summer of 1998 (“the 1998 crime”). On the same day that criminal case was transferred to the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office on the ground that the applicant’s actions could be classified as murder and the investigation of such a crime was within the competence of the prosecutor’s office.
10.  On 2 February 2001 the criminal cases in respect of the 1998 and 2001 crimes were joined.
11.  On the same day, the applicant participated in a videotaped on-site reconstruction of the 2001 crimes. According to the minutes of this investigative action, which was attended by the applicant, his lawyer, two attesting witnesses, investigating prosecutor G. and police officer M., who had questioned the applicant on the previous day, the applicant made statements concerning the circumstances of the 2001 crimes, but denied his involvement in the 1998 crime.
12.  On 2 February 2001, after the reconstruction had been conducted, the applicant signed a waiver in respect of his counsel, O. Kh., on the ground that the latter had prevented him from confessing to the 1998 crime. According to the applicant, while the waiver bore the date of 2 February 2001 it had actually been signed on a later date under coercion from the police officers and the case investigator.
13.  Following the reconstruction of 2 February 2001, the applicant’s lawyer, O. Kh., sought a meeting with the applicant. However, his oral requests, as well as written requests of 6 and 7 February, were rejected by investigating prosecutor G.
14.  On 7 February 2001 the applicant, who was represented by a newly‑appointed counsel, K., participated in a videotaped on-site reconstruction of the 1998 crime and confessed that he had committed it with Mr S.
15.  On 8 February 2001 the lawyer O. Kh. complained to prosecutor V. that investigating prosecutor G. had not replied to his request for a medical examination of the applicant, would not permit him to visit the applicant and had tried to force the applicant to request replacement of his lawyer.
16.  On 9 February 2001 O. Kh. was informed that he had been removed from the case and was furnished with the investigator’s decision to that effect dated 2 February 2001. The decision stated, inter alia, that the applicant had confessed to the 1998 crime but had later asserted his innocence on the advice of O. Kh. The investigator had therefore decided to remove O. Kh. from the case on the basis of Articles 61 and 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
17.  On 9 February 2001 the applicant, who was represented by yet another lawyer, M., was officially charged with the 1998 and 2001 crimes, served with the indictment and questioned as an accused.
18.  By letter of 10 February 2001, prosecutor V. informed the lawyer O. Kh. that his requests of 2, 6 and 7 February could not be met since he had been removed from the applicant’s case.
19.  In a complaint lodged on 12 February 2001 (see paragraph 36 below), the applicant’s wife raised the issue, inter alia, of the allegedly unlawful removal of O. Kh. from the case against her husband.
20.  On 14 February O. Kh. complained to prosecutor V. about the decision to remove him from the case, and asked him to quash that decision. In his reply of 19 February 2001, prosecutor V. informed O. Kh. that his removal from the case had been well-founded and was in accordance with Article 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further noted that the lawyer had breached professional ethics by advising his client to assert his innocence and retract part of his previous confession.
21.  In his letter of 4 March 2001 to the General Prosecutor’s Office (GPO) (see paragraph 39 below), the applicant complained that he had signed the waiver in respect of O. Kh. under pressure from the police officers and the case investigator.
22.  On 6 March 2001 O. Kh. complained to the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office about his removal. In its reply of 13 April 2001, the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office stated that the decision to remove the lawyer had been well-founded and that, moreover, the criminal case file contained the waiver in respect of the lawyer signed by the applicant.
23.  On 10 March 2001 the applicant submitted a request to investigating prosecutor G., asking that the lawyer M. be replaced by O. Kh., his first lawyer in the case, as his defence counsel.
24.  On 24 April 2001 the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s letter of 4 March 2001. It informed the applicant that replacement of the lawyer had taken place at his request, that lawyer O. Kh. was allowed to return to the case and that they had found no violation of criminal procedural legislation in the investigation of the criminal case against the applicant.
25.  On 27 May 2001 the applicant asked investigating prosecutor G. to cross-examine him together with his co-accused S., since the accusations against him had been mainly based on statements made by Mr S.
26.  On 1 June 2001 investigating prosecutor G. replied that the cross‑examination would be conducted after additional questioning of S., in case any discrepancies emerged between the testimonies of the applicant and Mr S.
27.  On 8 June 2001 the applicant was questioned in the presence of his first lawyer O. Kh. He confirmed all the statements with regard to the 2001 crimes which he had made during the interview on 27 January 2001. He also repeatedly claimed that he was innocent of the 1998 crime and explained that he had been forced to confess to the latter crime by officers from the police department.
28.  On 24 June 2001 investigating prosecutor G. informed the applicant that his request for cross-examination had been rejected, since no discrepancies had been found between the statements of the applicant and S.
29.  On the same date investigating prosecutor G. issued a new indictment, which was served on the applicant on the following day.
30.  On 20 November 2001 the Kyiv Appellate Court, acting as a first‑instance court, convicted the applicant and S. of the 1998 and 2001 crimes and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Three other individuals were sentenced to between three and six years’ imprisonment. The court did not mention the fact of the lawyer’s removal from the case in its judgment. The court also disregarded the denials by the applicant and S. of their involvement in the 1998 crime on the ground that their confessions during pre-trial investigation were detailed and consistent.
31.  On 18 April 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of the appellate court. In reply to the applicant’s complaint about a violation of his right to a defence, the Supreme Court in its judgment of 18 April 2002 stated that it found no evidence of a violation of the right to a defence or of any other serious violation of criminal procedural law that could provide a basis for quashing the judgment of the appellate court.
32.  On arrival at the Kharkivsky police station (according to the Government, on 30 January 2001) the applicant was examined by a paramedic who found him to be in good health.
33.  According to the applicant, on 1 February 2001 he was beaten with truncheons on wrists and shoulders by officers from the police department, who forced him to sign a waiver of his right to counsel and to confess to the 1998 crime, which he had not committed and about which he knew nothing.
34.  On 2 February 2001 the applicant informed his lawyer O. Kh. about the events of 1 February 2001. The lawyer advised the applicant to assert his innocence and to complain about the ill-treatment. The lawyer himself officially asked the authorities to conduct a medical examination of the applicant. This request was handed to the investigating prosecutor, G., who acknowledged its receipt by signing a copy of the request. On an unknown date prosecutor G. replied to O. Kh., stating that his request could not be granted since he had been removed from the case (see paragraph 16 above).
35.  At the end of the interview on 9 February 2001 (see paragraph 17 above) investigating prosecutor G. asked the applicant whether he had any bodily injuries; the applicant answered that at the moment he had none.
36.  On 12 February 2001 the applicant’s wife, Mrs S., complained to the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office (“the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office”) that investigating prosecutor G. of the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office and (unnamed) police officers of the police department had ill-treated the applicant in order to extract confessions with regard to the 1998 crime. She further wrote that, during the investigative action of 2 February 2001, the applicant had retracted his confession and that the lawyer O. Kh. had requested a medical examination of the applicant. In addition, she complained that investigating prosecutor G. had also been threatening her. On 14 February 2001 the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office transferred the request to the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office.
37.  Meanwhile, on 13 February 2001 the applicant was transferred to a pre‑trial detention centre. On arrival the applicant was examined by a doctor and was found to be in good health. The applicant made no complaints of ill-treatment.
38.  On 28 February 2001 the head of the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office, prosecutor V., issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the allegations that bodily harm had been inflicted on the applicant. The prosecutor noted that the applicant had denied any physical violence against him and that no evidence of unlawful actions by the police officers had been found. However, he did not refer to the applicant’s wife’s allegations concerning his subordinate, investigating prosecutor G. That decision was sent to Mrs S. on 2 March 2001 with a cover letter saying that the applicant had denied any violence towards him.
39.  On 4 March 2001 the applicant wrote a complaint to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. In his complaint the applicant stated that on 28 January 2001 police officers had forced him to confess to the 1998 crime, which he had not committed, and that on 2 February 2001 he had been forced to sign a waiver in respect of his lawyer O. Kh., and had been warned by investigating prosecutor G. and by the officers from the police department that he would have problems if he refused to cooperate. The applicant asked the GPO to ensure that his case was given objective consideration and to reinstate O. Kh. as his defence counsel. On 23 March 2001 the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office forwarded this complaint to the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office. On 26 March 2001 the complaint was transferred to investigating prosecutor G. for examination in the context of the investigation into the criminal case against the applicant.
40.  According to the Government, the applicant did not provide the names of the officers from the police department who had allegedly ill-treated him until he was questioned on 8 June 2001.
41.  On 21, 23 and 24 June 2001 investigating prosecutor G. questioned three police officers who had been named by the applicant. All three denied any coercion or other unlawful actions on their part.
42.  In its judgment of 20 November 2001, the Kyiv Court of Appeal stated that the applicant’s retraction of his confessions and his allegations of ill‑treatment had been examined and found to be groundless. The court based its conclusion on the fact that the applicant had not complained of ill-treatment during the investigation, that the first complaint about ill-treatment had been lodged by the applicant on 4 March 2001, more than two months after his arrest, and that the police officers and the investigating prosecutor had denied the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. The court also noted that the applicant had been informed of his right to have a lawyer.
43.  The applicant raised the issue of coercion in his appeal to the Supreme Court.
44.  In its judgment of 18 April 2002 the Supreme Court stated that it found no evidence that the applicant had been ill-treated.